View previous stories
	UN experts point to widespread use of secret detention linked to counter-terrorism by United Nations News   26 January 2010   Despite the fact that international law clearly prohibits secret detention, the practice is widespread and “reinvigorated” by the so-called global war on terror, several independent United Nations experts stated, outlining a series of steps aimed at curbing this human rights violation.   In a 222-page study which will be presented to the UN Human Rights Council in March, the experts conclude that “secret detention is irreconcilably in violation of international human rights law including during states of emergency and armed conflict. Likewise, it is in violation of international humanitarian law during any form of armed conflict.   “If resorted to in a widespread or systematic manner, secret detention might reach the threshold of a crime against humanity,” add the authors – the UN experts on counter-terrorism and torture, and the two UN expert bodies on arbitrary detention and enforced or involuntary disappearances.   The study, which took almost a year to complete, involves responses from 44 States to a detailed questionnaire, as well as interviews with 30 individuals – or their family members or their legal counsel – who were victims of secret detention, and in many cases may also have been subjected to torture.   It provides an historical overview of the use of secret detention, noting that it is not a new phenomenon in the context of counter-terrorism. From the Nazi regime to the former USSR with its Gulag system of forced labour camps, States have often resorted to secret detention to silence opposition, according to the report.   The study goes on to address the use of secret detention in the context of the ‘global war on terror’ following the events of 11 September 2001, describing “the progressive and determined elaboration of a comprehensive and coordinated system of secret detention” of persons suspected of terrorism, involving not only United States authorities, but also other States in almost all regions of the world.   It also highlights that secret detention in connection with counter-terrorism policies remains a serious problem on a global scale, either through the use of secret detention facilities; through declarations of a state of emergency, which allow prolonged secret detention; or through forms of “administrative detention,” which also allow prolonged secret detention.   The experts reiterate that international law clearly prohibits secret detention, which violates a number of human rights and humanitarian law norms that may not be derogated from under any circumstances.   “However, in spite of these unequivocal norms, the practice of secret detention in the context of countering terrorism is widespread and has been reinvigorated by the so-called global war on terror,” states the report, adding that many States, referring to national security concerns – often perceived or presented as unprecedented emergencies or threats – resort to secret detention.   Among their recommendations to address this serious human rights violation, the experts call for explicitly prohibiting secret detention, along with all other forms of unofficial detention. They also urged that safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty be fully respected, and that timely action be taken to ensure that immediate families of those detained are informed of their relatives’ capture, location, legal status and health condition.   The experts also point out that in almost no recent cases have there been any judicial investigations into allegations of secret detention and practically no one has been brought to justice.   “Although many victims feel that the secret detention has ‘stolen’ years of their lives and left indelible traces, often in terms of loss of their jobs and frequently their health, they almost never received any form of reparation, including rehabilitation or compensation.”   Therefore, the experts also recommend a number of steps to provide judicial remedies, reparations and rehabilitation to victims, and in some cases to their families.   The study was issued by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin; Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (represented by its Vice-Chairperson, Shaheen Sardar Ali); and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (represented by its Chairperson, Jeremy Sarkin).
	More prisons are not the answer by Juliet Lyon The Guardian/UK   Jan 2010   Instead of pumping more public money into prisons, we should invest in education, health, and community programmes.   Politicians rarely agree publicly about crime and punishment. But today the justice select committee presents a united view on how to cut crime. Following a substantive two-year inquiry, it states that the next government, of whichever stripe, must invest in prevention and rehabilitation instead of pouring scarce public monies into an unsustainable prison building programme.   In its report, Cutting crime: the case for justice re-investment, the committee shows how justice policy has swerved off-track. It reveals the high economic and social price of almost doubling our prison population in 20 years. Driven by political rhetoric, fear-mongering in the popular press and harsher sentencing, prison numbers in England and Wales have increased by 84% since 1990, from 44,975 to just under 83,000 today.   England and Wales currently has an imprisonment rate of 153 per 100,000 of the population, while France has a rate of 96 and Germany has a rate of 89. Government plans to increase capacity by 2014 would have pushed the rate to 178 per 100,000, far outstripping our western, and many eastern, European neighbours. These could now be abandoned in the light of this new evidence and economic constraints.   Figures from the Prison Reform Trust''s Bromley Briefings factfile give an idea of the costs racking up because of what amounts to a national addiction to imprisonment. The overall cost of the criminal justice system has risen from 2% of GDP to 2.5% over the last 10 years. That is a higher per capita level than the US or any EU country. Each new prison place now costs £170,000 over the life of the accommodation. The cost per prisoner per year is £41,000. The justice committee warns that, on current estimates, the government''s new prison plans would condemn it to finding an extra £4.2bn over the next 35 years.   Yet prison has a poor record for reducing reoffending – 47% of adults are reconvicted within one year of being released. For petty offenders, serving sentences of less than 12 months, this increases to 60%. For children and young people in custody the rate of re-offending rises to 75%. Re-offending by ex-prisoners costs society at least £11bn per year.   No surprise then that the justice committee saw the need for a rigorous examination of more effective ways to cut crime. Justice re-investment would shift the focus of expenditure away from incarceration and towards rehabilitation and prevention. This would involve investment in local education, health, drug, alcohol and community programmes in targeted areas based on analyses of where offences occur, where offenders live and what works in reducing offending. Investment in local solutions would free prison governors and staff to deal more effectively with people whose offending is so serious or violent that there can be no alternative to custody.   Re-investment of this kind will require funding transfers between the criminal justice system and service provided outside it, often at the local level. In turn, these will help to address the problem of centrally funded prisons being seen as a "free good", while potentially more effective interventions depend on the budgets of local authorities, health trusts or other local agencies and may not be available for courts to deploy. According to the justice committee, many community-based programmes aimed at tackling problems like alcohol misuse and mental ill-health are chronically under-funded.. Visit the related web page
	View more stories